Skip to content

Conversation

tothambrus11
Copy link
Member

Adds scientific talks to the website, and corrects some minor mistakes (Year->Date, missing link in readme)

(cherry picked from commit e742167abbbb08f6c03ec15f7561339e5524a55d)
@tothambrus11
Copy link
Member Author

@kyouko-taiga could you take a look and merge this?

@dabrahams
Copy link
Contributor

I wonder whether segregating certain materials as "scientific" is really what we want. Thoughts?

@kyouko-taiga
Copy link
Contributor

I agree with @dabrahams (or what I think his remark implied). I don't believe it's necessary to put "scientific" talks in a different section. These are just talks. The "scientific papers" title makes more sense, but I would but "academic" instead of "scientific".

Copy link
Contributor

@kyouko-taiga kyouko-taiga left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've been busy last year. The following papers can be added to the list:

|:-----:|:-------:|:-------------:|:-----------------------------------------------------|
| IWACO | 2023-05 | Dimi Racordon | [Borrow checking Hylo](https://youtu.be/oFupPFniD9s) |

## Scientific Papers
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
## Scientific Papers
## Academic Papers

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Perhaps more appropriate. Everything we do in this project is scientific, but those papers specifically have been written for an academic audience (except maybe the P2676R0 but I think it's fine to list it with the others).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants